Easy.  Squeak gives me just the right proportions of freeness,
stability, and control.  The TSTTCPW approach leaves me a basic
Smalltalk interface to the underlying OS features so I'm able to make
and use my _own_ abstractions where I want and employ others'
frameworks where I don't.

Personal growth:  A great way to learn about a subject is to model it
in Smalltalk.  Magma and Maui leave me free to create and operate
complex domain models with impunity.

If Pharo's method of evolution is creationism, Squeak's is
natural-selection.  I think Squeakers are interested in harvesting the
system more than sowing the system.  But sowing _does_ occur naturally
by its community of members sharing and harvesting hand-selected
improvements appropriate for a general-purpose system.  The
conservative approach taken means the trunk is usually top-quality, so
community productivity remains good too.  It's a sane approach geared
toward ensuring the software is serving the community and not the
other way around.

For these reasons and more, I'll continue to create and nurture new
domain models based on Squeak trunk.

 - Chris



On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Hernán Morales Durand
<hernan.morales at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No flame war intended. Maybe this topic has been discussed on this list, but
> I've never found a satisfactory conclusion. With "today" I mean why to start
> a software project *from scratch* with Squeak?
>
> My usage today is to load and try packages which only works under Squeak.
> Yours may be different, so it would be nice to know what squeak developers
> think about.
>
> What thing does have Squeak that others doesn't?
> Why would you choose Squeak over Pharo or Cincom Smalltalk?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hernán
>